Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Margaret Flowers writes a must-read column

Dear MoveOn,It is with great sadness that I watch you making last-gasp desperate
attempts to save Obamacare and Obama’s reputation. You look foolish when
you say that “Of course, it’s a good law” at the same time as your
constituents see through the Obamacare illusion.
The law is becoming less popular because people are beginning to see
through the false partisan claims of Democrats. And worse, you are
actually playing right into the Republican’s trap, really the trap of
Wall Street and big business interests.It’s time for honesty. Obamacare is policy that has roots in the
Nixon administration, was updated by the Heritage Foundation, a
Right-wing think tank, and supported by people like Newt Gingrich. It
was first put in place by Republican Governor Mitt Romney in
Massachusetts (where it has not worked). The ACA further privatizes our
health care by pouring hundreds of billions of public dollars into the
pockets of private health industries. It is accelerating the
privatization of our public health insurances, gutting our safety net
and fomenting greater consolidation of our health delivery system into
private hands. It sets the stage to completely privatize the pillars of
the old Democratic Party: Social Security and Medicare.Obamacare is the opposite of single payer. And supermajorities of
those who vote for Democrats support single payer, Medicare for All.
This is one of the reasons that people are not in the streets to save
it. In this time of health care crisis in which 80 million went without
needed care last year because of the cost and 4 million families went
bankrupt because of medical costs and illness over the past two years,
why do you think it is so hard to sell them on Obamacare? Because it is
the opposite of what people want and need.

Please make a point to share this very important column with your friends and family.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Brett
McGurk's lies about Iraq to Congress last week get exposed, Camp Ashraf
members can sue the US government for failure to protect them, we look
again at counter-insurgency, vast areas of Iraq are flooded, US Senator
Patty Murray rallies Congress to pass legislation to stop assault in the
ranks, and more.

US Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and
serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Today her office
issued the following:

(Washington, D.C.) –Today,
as the Senate debates the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) joined a bipartisan group of female
Senators on the floor to speak out against sexual assault in the
military and call on her colleagues to support some of the historic
changes being made to prevent this scourge. Sen. Murray also highlighted
her legislation with Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), which has been included in the NDAA bill, to provide trained military lawyers to victims of sexual assault in all service branches.

“When our best and our brightest put
on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they do so with
the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our
country and its people. But that sacrifice should never have to come in
the form of abuse from their fellow service members,” said Senator Murray in her speech. “Thanks
to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated
advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken
out we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere
have brought out of the shadows.”

In August, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed immediate implementation
of several measures to “gain greater consistency of effort and enhance
oversight, investigative quality, pretrial investigations and victim
support” in cases of military sexual assault. Among other measures, the
directive includes implementation of trained lawyers to provide victims
in all branches with guidance through the legal process, similar to the
legislation introduced by Senators Murray and Ayotte.

“I first want to thank Senator
Mikulski and Senator Collins for helping to bring many of us to the
floor today to discuss an issue that: cuts across partisan lines, has
plagued our nation’s military, and has gone unaddressed for far too
long.

“Military Sexual Assault is an
epidemic. And it has rightly been identified as such by the Pentagon. It
is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person
you rely on to have your back and to be there for you, would commit such
a terrible crime. It is simply appalling they could commit such a
personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. But, what’s
worse, and what has made change an absolute necessity - is the
prevalence of these crimes.

“Recent estimates tell us that 26,000
servicemembers are sexually assaulted each year. And just over 3,000 of
those assaults are reported. According to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by VA has suffered
from military sexual trauma. One in five.

“That is certainly not the act of a
comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos of any of the services. And
it can no longer be tolerated. And that is why the women of the Senate
have been united in calling for action.

“There has been much made of the fact
that there are now 20 women in the Senate – a historic number that I
think we all agree still needs to grow. But it’s also important to
remember that the number alone should not be what’s historic. Instead,
it is what we do with our newfound strength to address the issues that
are impacting women across the country. With this bill, the first
Defense Authorization of this Congress, we are doing exactly that.

“We are taking historic action to help
servicemembers access to the resources they need to seek justice
without fear. And, one way this bill will help do just that, how it
will: protect our servicemembers, assist victims, and punish criminals
-- is through the inclusion of a bill I introduced, across party lines,
with Senator Ayotte.

“Our bill, which is included in the
base bill, creates a new category of legal advocates, called Special
Victims’ Counsels, who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of
the interests of the victim. These SVCs would also advise the victim on
the range of legal issues they may face.

“For example, when a young Private
First Class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by
threatening her with unrelated legal charges -- like underage drinking
-- this new advocate would be there to protect her and tell her the
truth.

“Since January, the Air Force has
provided these advocates to over 500 victims through an innovative new
pilot program. Ten months later, the results speak for themselves: 92%
of victims are “extremely satisfied” with the advice and support their
SVC lent them throughout the military judicial process, 98% would
recommend other victims request these advocates, 93% felt that these
advocates effectively fought on their behalf.

“In describing their experience with
an advocate, one victim shared that, “Going through this was the hardest
thing I ever had to do in my life. Having a Special Victim Counsel
helped tremendously . . . No words could describe how much I appreciate
having one of these advocates.”

“Through our bipartisan efforts the
Defense Authorization bill will also enhance the responsibilities and
authority of DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office – also
known as SAPRO.

“This improvement will help to provide
better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across
the Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and
report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates, the number
of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of the
individual services.

“Some of this data collection and reporting is already being done.

“So this requirement would not be more
burdensome, but it would give that office authority to track and report
to us on the extent of the problem.

“I believe the great strength of our
military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who
wear the uniform. It is the courage of these Americans, to volunteer to
serve, that are the Pentagon’s greatest asset. I know it is said a lot,
but take a moment to really think about it.

“Our servicemembers volunteer to face
danger, to put their lives on the line, to protect the country and all
its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs. We think
of battles with insurgents, we shouldn’t have to focus on the threats
they encounter from their fellow servicemember.

“And we should never, never allow for a
culture in which the fear of reporting a crime allows a problem like
this to fester year after year.

“These are dangers that cannot be
accepted, and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to
face. Earlier this year when I asked Navy Secretary Ray Maybus about the
sexual assault epidemic, I was glad that he told me that “concern”
wasn’t a strong enough word to describe how he feels about this problem.
He said he is angry about it.

“And I know many of us here,
particularly many of my female colleagues who have dedicated so much
time to this issue, share this feeling and want to put an end to this
epidemic. So, I am hopeful that we can work quickly to do right by our
nation’s heroes.

“Because when our best and our
brightest put on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they
do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of
defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should never
have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow service members.

“I’m proud that the women of the
Senate have taken this issue head on. And what should never be lost in
the effort to enact the many changes that have been proposed, is that
for too long this was an issue that was simply swept under the rug.
That’s no longer the case.

“Thanks
to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated
advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken
out -- we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women
everywhere have brought out of the shadows.”

From the Senate, let's note the way the US government spends the money they collect in taxes. Kristina Wong (Washington Times) reports
that while other countries are below poverty level and Iraq rakes in
over $100 billion in oil, Iraq remains the target of charity.
Specifically, there's a reconstruction fund that two countries are
pulling out of -- but not the United States. And the US government gave
Iraq $470 million of US tax payer dollars in Fiscal Year 2013 and, for
Fiscal Year 2014, the US government plans to give $500 million. This
has nothing to do with the $573 million dollar loan -- again these are
US tax payer dollars -- the US government is granting Iraq to purchase
military weapons.

There is some concern over all the US tax dollars being poured into
Iraq. Last week, Brett McGurk, the State Dept's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, appeared
Wednesday before the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the
Middle
East
and North Africa (see last week's "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot").

US House Rep Brad Sherman: I want to focus on finances. How much
money did we give Iraq this year? How much do they get from oil? And
are they pumping oil as quickly as they can or are they constraining
their production in accordance with OPEC rules?Brett McGurk: In terms of money, we're not really giving Iraq much
money at all anymore. Our assistance levels have gone down
dramatically.US House Rep Brad Sherman: But it's still well over a billion?Brett McGurk: Uh, no. I believe that the most recent request is now
of under a billion. It's gone from 1.5 billion last year to, uh, FY13
[Fiscal Year 2013] to about 880 million. And I can again brief you on
the glide path in terms of our overall presence.

The actual request by the State Dept is $1.18 billion. What Wong's
reporting on? It's in addition to that. So Wong's reporting $1.073
billion for Iraq in FY14 plus the $1.18 billion the State Dept is
requesting for Iraq.

As we noted last week, Brett McGurk lied to Congress over and over.. Let's stay with that theme for a moment. Today the UNHCR issued the following:

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) calls for renewed efforts from states
to relocate former Camp Ashraf residents, also known as Camp New Iraq.Since the 1 September 2013 attack on Camp New Iraq where 52 residents
died, there has been limited progress in moving the remaining residents
to a third country. UNHCR encourages all Member States to share in the
international efforts, admit residents and offer them a long-term
solution.UNHCR and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) also
call upon the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure
the safety of the residents. UNHCR and UNAMI remain gravely concerned
about the fate of seven missing individuals formerly residing in Camp
New Iraq who disappeared on 1 September and call on the authorities to
locate them, ensure their wellbeing and safeguard them against any
forcible return.Since 2011, UNHCR, together with UNAMI, has been engaged in an effort
to find relocation opportunities outside Iraq for some 3,200 former
residents of Camp New Iraq. In total, UNHCR has so far been able to
secure the relocation to third countries of 300 residents.

As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty. All remaining members of the
community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1st. Adam Schreck (AP) reported
that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf
residents. In addition, 7 Ashraf residents were taken in the assault. This
month, in response to questions from US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee,
the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, Brett McGurk, stated, "The seven are not in Iraq."

So today the UNHCR issues a call for action. It's by no
means the first time they've done that and they'll do it again as
needed. But we're not talking about the United Nations, we're talking
about Brett McGurk and the US State Dept.

US House Rep Joseph Wilson: . . . but a real tragedy has been the
murders at Camp Ashraf. Since December 2008, when our government turned
over the protections of the camp to the Iraqi government, Prime
Minister Maliki has repeatedly assured the world that he would treat the
residents humanely and also that he would protect them from harm. Yet
it has not kept the promise promise as 111 people have been killed in
cold blood and more than a thousand wounded in five attacks including
the September 1st massacre, what is the United States doing to prevent
further attacks and greater loss of life in terms of ensuring the safety
and security of the residents

Brett McGurk: Congressman, first let me say thank you for your-your
service and your family's service. Speaking for myself and my team
who've spent many years in Iraq and have known many friends we've lost
in Iraq, it's something we think about every day and it inspires our
work and our dedication to do everything possible to succeed under very
difficult circumstances. Regarding Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, the
only place for the MEK and the residents of Camp Liberty to be safe is
outside of Iraq. Camp Liberty is a former US military base We lost
Americans, right nearby there, as late as the summer of 2010. We lost a
number of Americans to rocket fire and indirect fire attacks and our
embassy compounds were the most secure facilities in the country as
late as the summer of 2010, that was when we had about 60,000 troops in
the country in the country doing everything that they possibly could do
to hunt down the rocket teams that we knew were targeting us. Uh, there
are cells in Iraq -- we believe directed and inspired from Iran --
which are targeting the MEK, there's no question about that. And the
only place for the MEK to be safe is outside of Iraq. That is why the
State Dept and the Secretary have appointed a colleague of mine,
Jonathan Winer, to work this issue full time. to find a place for them
to go. Right now, there's about 2900 residents at Camp Liberty and
Albania's taken in about 210, Germany's agreed to take in 100 and that's
it. We need to find a place for these - these people to go. It is an
urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis.
And I went to the camp to meet with the survivors, to speak with the
families, and what they told me and I promised them to do everything I
possibly could to get them to safety. Uh, it is incumbent upon the
Iraqi government to do everything it possibly can to to keep them safe
-- and that means the T-walls and the sandbags and everything else. Uh,
but the only place for the residents to be safe is outside Iraq. Since
the tragic attacks at Camp Liberty on September 1st 1300 Iraqis were
killed, 52 people were massacred at Camp Ashraf. This was a tragic,
horrifying act. But since then, 1300 Iraqis in the country have been
killed. The country is incredibly dangerous and the MEK, to be safe,
have to leave Iraq and we want to find a place for them to go.

"It's an urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis," insisted McGurk to Congress last week.

And the State Dept supposedly takes the issue seriously.

Supposedly.

It was the UNHCR fueling the conversation on the Ashraf community today.
Not the State Dept. They issued no statement. They didn't even raise
the issue at their press briefing today.

McGurk lies to Congress last week claiming that the US is providing
leadership and raising awareness but it's done nothing on the most basic
terms.

They only hired a person in the middle of September to oversee the issue in response to the over-fifty deaths and 7 kidnappings.

And, here's a little info the administration doesn't want the MEK
thinking about, due to the Geneva obligations the US government owes to
Camp Ashraf residents, the US government is now legally liable. It
didn't honor international law -- law which the US signed onto -- so
survivors of the dead can file charges -- international court would be
the best place, since this is international law -- against the US
government and so could the families of the kidnapped.

Considering the fact that the US government's reputation is mud on the
world stage thanks to all the wars and all the illegal spying,
international courts could be harsh on the US.

And when the US didn't provide security?

People probably grasp this because the law is so rarely reported on.

The US government is liable.

People get hurt all the time!

Yes, indeed they do.

But, under Geneva, the US was supposed to guarantee the safety of these people.

And the US government can't even argue human error, act of god or any other legal claims.

That's because the US stationed no one, not one person, to protect the
residents. But that was the US obligation. And they failed to honor it
and people died as a result.

That's a lot of money.

Most likely, the US would reject any legal finding -- which would just
demonstrate, even more, to the global community that the US government
has no respect for the law.

In other words, if I were MEK, I'd be looking for a lawyer to file charges right away.

To get rich? No. To force the US government to address the 7 hostages and get them out of harm's way.

Starting to get why the US government should have gotten off its lazy
ass years ago? The only thing McGurk got right was what we've said for
years: They're not safe, they need to be out of Iraq.

When then-Secretary of Hillary Clinton refused to comply with a federal
court order, we started noting the reality that the minute the Ashraf
community was out of Iraq, the US was no longer obligated under Geneva
to provide protection. It's a shame that the US government refused to
honor its obligation but its even more of a shame -- legally -- that it
didn't honor its agreement and over 50 people were killed and 7
kidnapped. That's on the US government.

And when you're legally liable, little news flash here for the White
House, you work every day to get the people you are liable for out of
Iraq so that you're no longer liable. There are 2900 to resettle out of
Iraq currently. The State Dept needs to get to work.

The vaunted counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy promoted by retired
Gen. David Petraeus that guided the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has
come under renewed and caustic criticism from one of its reluctant
practitioners, both as a general and diplomat.“In short, COIN
failed in Afghanistan,” said Karl Eikenberry, the retired Army
lieutenant general and former chief of Combined Forces Command
Afghanistan who was later U.S. Ambassador to Kabul.

Counter-insurgency -- sometimes spelled today counterinsurgency -- has a
long and damaging history. It is war on a native people, it is
colonization. It failed repeatedly in Vietnam -- whether the French
pursued or the US did. It was a failure in terms of accomplishing
anything other than murdering innocents.

It was a failure and a world-wide stigma which is why the US military walked away from it.

Prior to the surge, Petraeus was initially sent to Iraq in 2004
given the responsibility of training “a new Iraqi police force with an
emphasis on counterinsurgency.” While in Iraq, Petraeus worked with a
retired Colonel named Jim Steele, who was sent to Iraq as a personal
envoy of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Steele acquired a name for himself
in ‘counterinsurgency’ circles having led the U.S. Special Forces
training of paramilitary units in El Salvador in the 1980s, where he
turned them into efficient and highly effective death squads waging a
massive terror war against the leftist insurgency and the population
which supported them, resulting in the deaths of roughly 70,000 people.1Jim Steele had to leave a promising military career after his
involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal – trading arms to the Iranians
for their war against Iraq to finance the death squads in Central
America – and so he naturally turned to the private sector. But he had
so impressed a Congressman named Dick Cheney, that when Cheney was Vice
President, he and Rumsfeld maintained a cozy relationship with Steele
who was then sent to Iraq in 2003 to help train the Iraqi paramilitary
forces. Steele, working with David Petraeus and others, helped establish
“a fearsome paramilitary force” which was designed to counter the Sunni
insurgency which had developed in reaction to the U.S. invasion and
occupation, running ruthless death squads which helped plunge the
country into a deep civil war. Petraeus’ role in helping to create some
of Iraq’s most feared death squads was revealed in a 2013 Guardian investigation. 2However, in 2005, the Pentagon had openly acknowledged that it was
considering employing “the Salvador option” in Iraq in order “to take
the offensive against the insurgents.” John Negroponte, who had been the
U.S. Ambassador to Honduras when the U.S. was running death squads out
of Honduras in Central America was, in 2005, the U.S. Ambassador to
Iraq. The Pentagon and the CIA were considering what roles they could
play, possibly using U.S. Special Forces, to help train Iraqi “death
squads” to hunt down and kill “insurgents.” 3Within the first three years of the Iraq war and occupation, the British medical journal, The Lancet,
published research indicating that between 2003 and 2006, an estimated
650,000 – 940,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war. 4 A survey from 2008 indicated that there had been more than one million deaths in Iraq caused by the war. 5This is referred to as a “counterinsurgency” strategy. In 2006,
General Petraeus wrote the forward to the Department of the Army’s Field
Manual on Counterinsurgency, in which he noted that, “all insurgencies,
even today’s highly adaptable strains, remain wars amongst the
people.” 6
A 1962 U.S. counterinsurgency guide for the U.S. war in Vietnam said it
even more bluntly when it noted that, “The ultimate and decisive target
is the people… Society itself is at war and the resources, motives, and
targets of the struggle are found almost wholly within the local
population.”7

The rains continue in Iraq. All Iraq News reports a four-year-old boy in Hilla died from the rains. Alsumaria notes
the Dhi Qar Provincial Council shut down on government operations --
including schools -- for Tuesday and Wednesday as a result of the heavy
rains and flooding throughout southern Iraq. Alsumaria also reported the Dhi Qar Provincial Council was asking Nouri for 200 billion dinars to address the flooding. Dar Addustour reports that Nouri and the Cabinet of Ministers state they'll give 200 billion dinars to each province effected by the flooding. Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports
there is a current rush to restore the damns in southern Iraq to
prevent a repeat of last year's massive flooding. If Iraq had a real
leader -- and not Nouri al-Maliki -- these dams would have been restored
in the dry season and there'd be no mad dash, a year later, to fix what
should have already been addressed. Safaa Abdel-Hamid and Mohammed al-Mah (Alsumaria) reports
that Anbar Province's civil defense directorate is warning Anbar
residents that the flooding could be dangerous for another reason --
landmines. Flooding could transport the land mines and flooding could
also conceal them leading someone to step into the water and onto a
landmine. Last April, UNICEF noted:

It
is estimated that more than 1,730 square kilometers of land in Iraq is
contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordinance, affecting 1.6 million
Iraqis in around 4,000 communities across the country.

Of
these, nearly one million children are affected by the presence of landmines
with hundreds having been maimed or killed by exploded cluster bomblets since
1991. The most recent Iraqi child victimized is a twelve year old boy who lost
one eye and both his hands from a munition that exploded when he was herding
sheep near Basra in March, 2013.

Could this have been anticipated? Dropping back to December 26th of last year:All Iraq News notes that Baghdad is receiving the most rainfall it's seen in thirty years. Alsumaria adds
that the last days alone have seen the amount of rainfall Baghdad
usually receives in a full year (note the picture of the three men
walking down the street with water up to their knees). Kitabat notes
that the rain is destroying the infrastructure (check out the photo of
the man who's apparently trying to get home with bags of groceries).This is not just due to rainfall. This is also the result of Iraq's
crumbling infrastructure -- infrastructure Nouri al-Maliki has had six
years to address and he's done nothing. Alsumaria notes
yesterday's rains have caused 3 deaths and two people to be injured in
Baghdad -- two deaths from a house collapsing due to the rain and one
from electrical death (with two more injured in that as well) and that
main streets in the capital are sinking. All Iraq News notes Baghdad has been placed on high alert because of the torrential rains.You could mistake Baghdad for Venice in this All Iraq News photo essay which notes that students are forced to walk through the high standing water to get to schools. They also note
of Tuesday's rainfall: Baghdad had the most yesterday (67 mm) followed
by Hilla, Azizia and Karbala (rainfall was also recorded in Samawa,
Rifai and Basra -- of those three, Basra was the highest and Baghdad's
rainfall was three times Basra's). It's not just Baghdad. Alsumaria notes that after ten house collapses in Wasit Province village, the Iraqi Red Crescent began evacuating the entire village. Dar Addustour notes Nouri issued a statement yesterday that he's going to oversee a committee that will try to address the situation.

Yes, none of what's going on in Iraq right now is a surprise and had
Nouri really addressed the situation as he claimed he was doing last
December, Iraqis wouldn't be suffering as much as they are today.